Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Isn't VP pure killiness with a turn limit.

KP is a different level but I don't think it is "higher"

The problem with LMS is that games could be prolonged nearly indefinitely with defensive play, if there was a decent mechanism to force engagement then it could work. After turn 6 the edges of the table collapse D6" towards the center... yeah that wouldn't be too complicated.

LMS and VPs give players an interesting choice whether to attack the strongest, most valuable units first, or pick the low hanging fruit. (I prefer VPs because I think LMS can lead to dull prolonged games.)

LMS doesn't give any interesting choices, just a puzzle to solve of how to best sequence your attacks so you can table the other guy before he tables you.

VPs and KPs have a clock of sorts, so target priority becomes a factor.

But as I've said elsewhere, I prefer objectives such as headhunting over VPs / KPs.

It should be 6 KP per army, period. The 6 most expensive units are worth a point each.

If either army has less than 6 units then the game defaults down to however many KP the smallest force can field.

JohnHwangDD wrote:LMS doesn't give any interesting choices, just a puzzle to solve of how to best sequence your attacks so you can table the other guy before he tables you.

...

... .

What is a puzzle of how to best sequence your attacks if not interesting choices? Surely the point of a game is to present problems to which the solutions are not immediately obvious.

Except, LMS is a mono-dimensional puzzle.

VP and KP games restrict turns, so time is a resource that needs to be managed. That means, any turn that you're taking actions to erode your opponent's ability to score VPs / KPs against you has an opportunity cost because you aren't using those turns to score VPs / KPs.

LMS, you have unlimited time. So you no longer need to make that tradeoff. You simply need to find a way to table your opponent, which is a much simpler thing to focus on.

Even so, a lot of people like LMS, so clearly it has puzzle value.

ptlangley wrote:I think another problem people are having with KP is it has no basis in reality (Yes I know its just a game). Objectives make sense strategically and/or tactically... "I win if I capture the important areas." As an added benefit it is pretty easy in practice.

What about the reality of you lost most of your army now i will play defensively because i can and when this battle is over it will be harder for you to fight again. I mean think about it if you IG losses half there army how much do they have to replace ? If someone loses 1 MC even if it was the highest pooint value they had from a reality stand point the army could keep fighting and only needs to replace one unit.

Hang on a minute...

Proof that the bathroom really is the best place for a good idea what about this one I just thought of.

Under the old (4th ed) missions, there was a VP mission (annihilate I think?) which added points from enemy kills AND points from your own surviving units.

Why don't we do something similar with KP's? Armies with lots of smaller units that can capture/contest in objective missions are penalised with more KP's (as intended by the 3-mission format) BUT both armies have the same 'maximum' points total and armies with more units actually start in the lead.

Apart from making things fairer, this also has the advantage of being quite realistic. When the game ends, if you're still outnumbered, you'll probably lose. This is actually quite a subtle way of representing how smaller elite armies can be worn down and eventually overwhelmed by less capable but numerically superior forces.

Vaktathi wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:Kill Points is the balance point for the fact that, 2/3rds of the time, a maxed-out Troops army has superiority in victory conditions. Without Kill Points, IG becomes dominant by sheer spamming of units. A 1500pt IG army can field around 18 scoring units, with plenty of heavy-weapon potential.

You are assuming that *more* scoring units automatically is an advantage. I see this argument come up every time KP's comes up, and it never really makes sense.

IG scoring units are weak, don't cause a whole lot of damage by themselves, are prone to fleeing, slow, and are best when stationary, and have horrendously overcosted transports. Not exactly the best setup. An Eldar army with 3-4 mechanized DA squads, drop pod marines, huge ork squads, etc are going to be infintely more competitive.

I think IG deserves a specific exemption, as they have the weakest-by-far Troops choices in the game, and it's probable that the Platoon system is here to stay, because our squads aren't worth half a slot if taken alone. I am extremely skeptical that GW can fix IG in any workable way, it's far more likely they just give us new toys without fixing the fundamental problems.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Hang on a minute...

Proof that the bathroom really is the best place for a good idea what about this one I just thought of.

Under the old (4th ed) missions, there was a VP mission (annihilate I think?) which added points from enemy kills AND points from your own surviving units.

Why don't we do something similar with KP's? Armies with lots of smaller units that can capture/contest in objective missions are penalised with more KP's (as intended by the 3-mission format) BUT both armies have the same 'maximum' points total and armies with more units actually start in the lead.

Apart from making things fairer, this also has the advantage of being quite realistic. When the game ends, if you're still outnumbered, you'll probably lose. This is actually quite a subtle way of representing how smaller elite armies can be worn down and eventually overwhelmed by less capable but numerically superior forces.

I think that is brilliant! ALso it is very simple, no additional record keeping really just more counting, and all of a sudden taking MORE KP is no longer a liability.

The best Idea I have heard yet, I salute you!

Hm, worth a test, maybe?

I'll see if people around here want to try it out. Maybe hit up the IG players...

I'd be good with it.

While the total KPs available in any given game would vary by army and list, the total KPs available to any given player in any given game would be the same as for their opponent, so it would be "fair".

What about a ratio type system? Whoever gets the best wins.

So an IG force is worth 20KP and a CSM force is worth 10KP.
If the CSM player loses 2KP (1/5 of his starting no of KPs) he has to take 4KP from the IG player to draw and 5KP to win.

This means that squads in more numerous armies are worth less in the final scoring but elite squads that can rip through several squads without dying are more valuble.

This is a relatively simple way of sorting things out, but in all honesty VPs are still a far more accurate way of determining who is valuble.

Why, why, why did GW change this?!?

If it ain't broke don't fix it!